The phrase “good of something” is not grammatically correct and is not usable in written English.
To express the idea of “good for something” you would say “beneficial for something” or “useful for something.” For example: Fish oil has been found to be beneficial for cardiovascular health.
Even if it is goal-directed, why assume that a living thing serves its own good rather than the good of something else?
Compare an alternative formulation of Dawkins' central question: "When we say that an adaptation is 'for the good of' something, what is that something?…I am suggesting that the appropriate 'something,' the 'unit of selection' in that sense, is the active germ-line replicator" (1982a, p. 47).
But I do say what I think and I only say it for the better, for the good of something.
For it is love that makes humanity a community, that calls for self-sacrifice and the sublimation of the personal for the good of something larger.
Criticism is leveled at leaders for various reasons, with the main one being that people perceive something isn't working to their benefit or for the greater good of something everyone has a stake in.
So the oil well is a good example of something that's close to common value but it isn't really literally common value, probably, in reality.
I think that my filmmaking is really a good combination of something like a Claude Sautet film plus the Jason Bourne trilogy; it's really a good mix.
Presidential documents provide a good example of something currently needing improvement in this respect.
If I don't have a good analysis of something, I am lost".
Even a good dollop of something yucky doesn't seem to do the trick.
With movies currently being shot all over Africa, there's a good chance of something similar happening again.
